Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009
Owen Lattimore, the premier chronicler of China's inner-Asian frontier, designated by the term ‘frontier feudalism’ a particularly significant and recurrent process in the social history of that area. By it he meant the pattern in which nomadic Turko-Mongol chiefs either sold their allegiance as ‘wardens of the march’ and border guardians to Chinese emperors in return for titles and land investitures, or else conquered territory along imperial frontiers in their own names. Ineither case, the chiefs' authority over his followers then changed from a kin-oriented tribal base to a patron–client-oriented feudal base, as his followers became peasantized and lost their ability to move away from the chief – anability that underlay what Lattimore viewed as the much more fluid tribal–nomadic social order and polity. To Lattimore frontier feudalism was an important vehicle in the establishment of social and political stratification along ethnically differentiated lines (as tribesmen settled down as rulers of a subordinate peasantry).It also created articulation between state and tribal polities and served as a major factor in the sedentarization of nomads (Lattimore 1962a, b). In this connection one recalls the proverb recited to Genghis Khan's son and successor, Ogotai, by an adviser: ‘The empire was created on horseback, but it cannot be governed on horseback’ (Grousset 1970: 257).